Recent Changes

Wednesday, May 1

Friday, April 12

Freedom of Expression
edited
... Question: Did the Board's denial of a permit to the Ku Klux Klan violate free speech under th…

...

Question: Did the Board's denial of a permit to the Ku Klux Klan violate free speech under the First Amendment?
Answer: Yes. The display was private religious speech that "is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Because Capitol Square is designated as a traditional public forum, any group may express their views there, and the Board may regulate the content of the Klan's expression on the plaza only if a restriction is necessary and narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.Significance: Private religious speech that "is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression
Virginia v. Black (2002)
Units: Federalism, Constitutional Underpinnings

...

Question: Does 18 U.S.C. 704(b), the Stolen Valor Act, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Answer: Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority, affirmed the Court of Appeals. Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny and are almost always invalid, except in rare and extreme circumstances. While categories of speech, such as defamation and true threats, present a grave and imminent threat, false statements alone do not present such a threat. Congress drafted the Stolen Valor Act too broadly, attempting to limit speech that could cause no harm. Criminal punishment for such speech is improper.Significance: Still unconstitutional for Congress to act broadly in the sense that it tried to limit speech that causes no harm, and this is no grounds for criminal punishment.
{https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdDc-qiAEKDojeTVq_8oP-Zm3VnchEWfheB2J7JsZHyY46TZKv}
A full timeline of First Amendment evolution can be found here.

Units: Political Beliefs, Behaviors in Parties, Campaigns, and Elections), Institutions of Government, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Keywords: Smith Act, conspiring, overthrow of government by force, remandedMnemonic Device: Yates yells for comminism
Background:Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force. This case was decided in conjunction with Richmond v. United States and Schneiderman v. United States.
Question: Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?

...

Units: Federalism, Constitutional Underpinnings
Keywords: prima facieMnemonic Device: Black Burns Crosses
Background: Court heard a case on a Virginia statute that prohibited cross-burning. Cross-burning would be considered prima facie, as a the intent to intimidate, meaning the defendant had the burden of proof (guilty until proven innocent).
Question: Does Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?

...

Units: Civil liberties
Keywords: school speechMnemonic Device: Morse and Mary Jane
Background: A student, Frederick, was suspended for holding up a sign saying "Bong hits 4 Jesus" at a school supervised event. Frederick claimed his 1st Amendment rights were violated.
Question: Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?

...

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Units: Civil libertiesMnemonic Device: Phelps hates (insert derogatory homophobic slur)
Background: The family of deceased soldier sued the Westboro Baptist Church for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after members of the church protested his funeral with signs reading: “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fag troops.” U.S. District judge was in favor of the family, while the Court of Appeals overturned it to favor the church.
Question: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

...

Units: Political Beliefs, Behaviors in Parties, Campaigns, and Elections, Institutions of Government, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Keywords: Stolen Valor Act, defamation, true threats
Mnemonic Device: Stolen Valor Act hurts Alvarez
Background: In 2007, Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting of the Three Valley Water District Board, stationed in Claremont, California, as a new member. He introduced himself by saying "I'm a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. As this statement was not true, Alvarez was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, the place where the trial was to occur, rejected Alvarez's claim that the Act was unconstitutional. This decision was reversed by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held the law invalid.
Question: Does 18 U.S.C. 704(b), the Stolen Valor Act, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

Constitutional Question: Can someone who has left the immediate vicinity of a house that is being searched be detained?
Decision of the Court/Significance: The court ruled that they could, if there was reason to believe they were involved in whatever the house was being searched for.Name: California v. Greenwood
Year: 1988
Government Units Involved: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Key Vocab: Narcotics
Background: Greenwood was arrested for drug trafficking after cops found evidence in his trash. He said that it was infringing on his 14th Amendment rights.
Constitutional Question: Whether a person has a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable?
Decision of the Court/Significance: It set the precedent and defined te role of the 14th Amendment. Looking through someone's trash is legal and not infringing on a person's 14th Amendment rights.
Name: Chimel v. California
Year: 1969
Government Units Involved: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Key Vocab: immediate control
Background: The defendant, Chimel (the “defendant”), was arrested inside his home and police asked him for consent to search the home. The defendant refused the request. The police proceeded nonetheless, incident to the lawful arrest and searched in different
rooms. The police also had the defendant’s wife open various dresser drawers and remove their contents.
Constitutional Question: When someone is arrested in their home, is there need for a warrant?
Decision of the Court/Significance: Any area that belongs to that person is protected under the 4th amendment and cannot be searched without a proper search warrant. Shows what the extent of the 4th amendment is. There was another case that adjusted the ruling that was set in this case.
Name: Olmstead v. United States
Year: 1928
Government units Involved: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Key Vocab:Prohibition
Background: A few men, during Prohibition were caught conspiring of liquor related crimes. They had their phones tapped and they found out and sued, claiming their 4th amendment rights had been infringed upon.
Constitutional Question: “Whether the use of evidence of private telephone conversations between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tapping, amounted to a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Decision of the Court/Significance:It voted against it, saying that there was no searching or seizure, so what they did was completely legal. It set one of the earliest precedents for the 4th and 5th amendments. Might have played a role in ending Prohibition because of the quantity of liquor related crimes during that time period.
How These Rights are Viewed:
{http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NNrYMlfV-Nw/THrnSHgumKI/AAAAAAAAABo/u_oQYNOpP3E/s1600/2261228251_ea70192df6_o.jpg} {http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3gWBTw1EQQ8/S_GG7ZxbJ8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/jNcx5MsQUpE/s1600/dp_privacy_500.gif}

...

3. Which Court case increases a woman's right to privacy? Why?
4. How has the right of privacy been expanded?5.What5. What does a
See also:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201282392637358491.html

(editor), Casey BarryBarry, Alex Augusto, and Jesse Kenney
Introduction
Freedom of religion, in the United States, is a constitutionally guaranteed right which is provided in the religion clause of the First Amendment (which is part of the Bill of Rights). It reads:

...

Political Cartoons
{http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/keefe_kansas-education-teaching-evolution.jpg}

...

their curriculum.
{http://www.jantoo.com/cartoons/lowres/122/12254069_low.jpg} This cartoon is poking fun at the fact that the Ten Commandments and other religious literature is even being posted in classrooms and that it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court should even have to hear these cases.
Works Cited

that the defendentdefendant cannot be
Right against self-incrimination: This right is given in the Self-Incrimination Clause in which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This allows the defendant to not give any evidence that might be used against them by the prosecution.
Right to confront witnesses: This is in the “confrontation clause” given in the Sixth Amendment. This allows the defendant to cross-examine witnesses, or require witnesses to come to court and be questioned by the defense. This amendment forbids prosecutors from proving a defendant’s guilt with oral or written statements given by non-testifying witnesses.

...

Right to be represented by an attorney: The Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is allowed an attorney, and if the defendant can not afford one then one will be be given to the defendant.
Right to not be placed in double jeopardy: This is a right provided in a clause given in the Fifth Amendment. It protects defendants from harassment by preventing them from being put on trial more than once for the same offense.Powell*Powell v. Alabama (1932)
AP(1932)*AP Government Units:

...

civil liberties.
Key
Key Words:Due process,

...

to counsel
Mnemonic
Mnemonic Device: Please

...

Lawbreaking cases.
Background:
Background: In 1932,

...

sentenced to death.death by an all white court. Alabama law

...

at trial.
Question:
Question: Did the

...

Fourteenth Amendment?
Answer:
Answer: Yes. The

...

Sixth Amendment.
Significance:
Significance: Strengthened the

...

Fourteenth Amendments.
Policy Impact: With this ruling the Court set a precedent for other cases in which counsel must be guaranteed to everyone facing the death sentence no matter if they are in a state or federal court.BettsJohnson v. Brady (1941)Zerbst (1938)
AP Gov Units: The Court and the Constitution
Keywords: Violation of Due Process, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Counsel
Mnemonic Device: Justifying On Heavy sentences Not Supported On Needy defendants
Background: Johnson was detained for a crime and had not been represented by an attorney, and after filing for a release, he was denied. At this time he thought his Sixth Amendment rights were being violated, and so he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Question: Did the lower court infringe on the defendant’s rights by not providing an attorney?
Answer: Yes, Johnson did deserve to have an attorney, and he should have been released on the grounds that no case can be made without proper representation of the defendant.
Significance: Johnson v. Zerbst is another strength to the rights of defendants, makes possible for convicted peoples to have a better chance of proving their innocence.
Policy Impact: Lower Courts could not so easily detain and hold convicted peoples without granting them counsel to be tried. Johnson v. Zerbst was essential in reform of the judicial system by carrying out the rights detailed in the Sixth Amendment.
*Betts v. Brady (1941)* AP Gov Units:
Keywords: Right to Counsel, Fair Trial Mnemonic Device: Better Earn money or Tough To Save case
Background: Betts was arrested and tried for robbery. In his trial, he appealed for a council and was denied counsel. Betts was found guilty.

...

Significance: Undermines the fair trial aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment. People who are convicted and cannot afford a counsel are essentially already guilty due to the lack of ability to obtain a lawyer.
Policy Impact: States could ignore the fair trial clause as they only needed to not interfere with any counsel and did not have to provide one to anyone who does not have one.Miranda*Miranda v. Arizona (1963) AP(1963)*AP Gov Units:
Keywords: self-incrimination, right to counsel
Mnemonic Device: Must Initially Read All rights before, Not During An interrogation.

...

Significance: This strengthened the Fifth Amendment right of protection against self-incrimination, as well as the Sixth Amendment the right to a counsel.
Policy Impact: The Court outlined specific statements that the police are required to tell a defendant prior to interrogation. These were known as “Miranda Rights” in which police started out by saying “You have the right to remain silent anything said can and will be used against you in a court of law.” These statements also included the right to an attorney. Gideon*Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)(1963)*
AP Gov Units: Constitutional Underpinnings

...

Device: Getting indicted doesn’t exclude one’s needsIndicted Doesn’t Exclude One’s Needs -our wrights
Background: Gideon convicted of breaking and entering, had no money for a lawyer and court refused to provide him with one. Gideon was found guilty and sentenced to five years in state prison.
Question: Was Gideon’s Sixth Amendment right violated when the court refused to provide a lawyer for Gideon?
Answer: The Supreme Court unanimously found that Gideon was in the right and that the court should have provided him with a lawyer if he himself could not.
Significance: Strengthened the ruling of the Fourteenth Amendment, representation in court is “a necessity, not a luxury” as stated by Justice Hugo Black

...

Fourteenth Amendment encompasesencompasses all cases,

...

the Constitution.
Massiah v. United States (1963)
AP Gov Units: Rights and Liberties
Keywords: Protection of Privacy, incrimination
Mnemonic Device: Manipulating A Suspect’s Sayings Is Always Humiliating
Background: Massiah and conspirator were tried for drug violations. During bail, the court bugged Massiah with conspirator’s cooperation, and the tapes revealed Massiah’s admittance to the crime.
Question: Can evidence found in dubious fashion be considered valid in a criminal or civil court cases?
Answer: No. Any evidence has to be found by legal means, even if partial party compliance is involved.
Significance: Strengthens the Sixth Amendment and the protection of the accused. Prevents big corporation or organisations with connections from forging or violating privacy and/ or tampering with evidence to convict the accused.
Policy Impact: When in a criminal or civil case, prosecution must take care to have all of the proper licenses and paperwork to present evidence, lest they are proven to be ill-gotten in which the evidence is moot.
Pointer v. Texas (1964)
AP Gov Units:ConstitutionalUnits: Constitutional underpinnings, institutions
Keywords: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process
Mnemonic Device: Pointer Once IN Trial was never cross-Examined; Robbery

...

Significance: It strengthened the Sixth Amendment by applying the rights of this amendment to state criminal trials.
Policy Impact: The rule that disqualifies an accomplice from testifying on behalf of the defendant cannot be defended by the assumption that the group of persons are likely to commit perjury. It is only fair since an accomplice may be called by the prosecution to testify against the defendant.Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
AP Gov Units: Constitutional Underpinnings
Keywords: Right to Counsel, Due Process
Mnemonic Device: Have to Appoint Mediary even when Lacking Intensity or Negligence
Background: Argersinger was arrested, sentenced to 90 days in jail. Florida law ignored jury trials for verdicts under six months, so the state court thought they could ignore representation in counsel.
Question: By not appointing counsel, was the Florida Law unconstitutional in misrepresentation?
Answer: Yes, no matter the verdict, Argersinger still deserved to have counsel according to the Sixth Amendment.
Significance: No matter what type of case be it criminal or civil, all cases treat the defendant with their due rights, and no law can abridge the access to one’s right to counsel.
Policy Impact: Laws of the states are no longer permitted to restrict any rights that the defendant may have even if the case is considered to be a waste of time in being misdemeanor, or civil case, right to counsel must not be denied or interfered with.
Montejo v. Louisiana (2008)
AP Gov Units: Constitutional underpinnings, Institutions of government (judicial), civil rights and civil liberties.
Keywords: Sixth Amendment, right to counsel
Mnemonic Device: Montejo ONly Thought Evidence Justifiable if attorney Observed.
Background: Montejo was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Lewis Ferrari. The prosecution submitted Montejo’s letter of apology he wrote to Ferrari’s wife. Montejo wrote this letter at the suggestion of the detective. Montejo was read his Miranda rights and wrote his explanation of why he was participating in the search for the weapon. However, his attorney had been appointed that same morning of the search, and Montejo didn't know this. He then stated that the letter was not valid evidence since his attorney was not present.
Question: After the appointment of an attorney, does a defendant need to take additional steps to accept the appointment in order to secure the protections given by the Sixth Amendment?
Answer: In a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Montejo, held that evidence obtained through interrogation after the defendant has invoked his right to counsel was invalid
Significance: This strengthened the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel.
Policy Impact:The Court had overruled their prior decision in Michigan v. Jackson which they stated this to be a valid situation.
{political cartoon april 8.png} This is a political cartoon that is poking fun at the right to an attorney. {sixth-amendment-cartoon-1.gif} Another political cartoon poking fun at the right to an attorney.
{sixth.gif} A political cartoon that is poking fun of the Sixth Amendment rights.

...

Questions:
1. What are some criminal rights?2.Why2. Why is the

...

Arizona important?
3.What
3. What was the

...

v. Wainwright?
4. Which Amendment forces the States to follow the Bill of Rights?
5. Name one Incorporation Case.
6. Aside from a lack of attorney, why else would the Supreme Court rule the issue in Powell v. Alabama unconstitutional?
Works Cited

Units: Political Beliefs, Behaviors in Parties, Campaigns, and Elections), Institutions of Government, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Keywords: Smith Act, conspiring, overthrow of government by force, remandedMnemonic Device:
Background:Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force. This case was decided in conjunction with Richmond v. United States and Schneiderman v. United States.
Question:
DidDid the Smith
Answer: In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court reversed the convictions and remanded the cases to a District Court for retrial. The Court interpreted the Smith Act in the following manner: First, the term "organize" was construed to mean the creation of a new organization, making the Act inapplicable to subsequent organizational acts. Second, the Court drew a distinction between the "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow as an abstract principle" and the "advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the forcible overthrow of the Government." The Court recognized that instances of speech that amounted to "advocacy of action" were "few and far between.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

...

Question: Does 18 U.S.C. 704(b), the Stolen Valor Act, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Answer: Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority, affirmed the Court of Appeals. Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny and are almost always invalid, except in rare and extreme circumstances. While categories of speech, such as defamation and true threats, present a grave and imminent threat, false statements alone do not present such a threat. Congress drafted the Stolen Valor Act too broadly, attempting to limit speech that could cause no harm. Criminal punishment for such speech is improper.A full timeline of First Amendment evolution can be found here.
{https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdDc-qiAEKDojeTVq_8oP-Zm3VnchEWfheB2J7JsZHyY46TZKv} A full timeline of First Amendment evolution can be found here.
Also see additional article.
Works Cited
"About." PapBlog Human Rights Etc. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.